ArticleBMJ global health2025
Global research agenda for medical education regulation: findings from a nominal group consensus exercise.
Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough medical education regulation is widely practised and given substantial resource and priority by policymakers and leaders, there is little empirical evidence to support it or guide regulation practices at an international level. In recent years, international and cross-border accreditation systems have gained prominence, often linked to migratory opportunities for graduating physicians. Given the high-stakes nature of regulation in medical education, there is a pressing need for research in this area, including the development of a framework to guide how to prioritise the different areas of scholarly inquiry that need to be addressed to best inform and elevate accreditation practices.
methodsThis article reports a nominal group technique consensus exercise on global medical education regulation conducted in August 2023 in London, UK. Participants were invited based on their research and leadership roles in medical education regulation around the world. Working in three groups using the nominal group technique, participants examined issues associated with medical education regulation globally that required research and evaluation.
results18 participants from 11 countries took part. There was remarkable consistency across the three groups. Each group identified over 15 areas of inquiry summarised in seven overall research domains: Purpose, Quality and Sustainability, Economics, Governance, Colonialism, Process and Outcomes. DISCUSSION: Regulation is ubiquitous in medical education, and a panel of international scholars and leaders identified a pressing set of global issues that require exploration to inform future practices. This research agenda can help policymakers and researchers understand and embrace the complexity that underlies this topic and use it to prioritise research efforts in the years ahead.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.